GET FREE E-MAIL UPDATES: SEND US YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS WITH SUBSCRIBE IN THE SUBJECT LINE
or subscribe to our
Twitter service

UNDERNEWS

Undernews is the online report of the Progressive Review, edited by Sam Smith, who covered Washington during all or part of ten of America's presidencies and who has edited alternative journals since 1964. The Review, which has been on the web since 1995, is now published from Freeport, Maine. We get over 5 million article visits a year. See prorev.com for full contents of our site

December 28, 2009

THE HIDDEN CLASS DIVISION IN MEDICAL MARIJUANA

Joshua Holland, Alternet - Marijuana is only legal for those who have $100-$300 to fork over for a medical marijuana card (you don't get any pot in return), who live in an area where there are medical marijuana dispensaries (generally liberal-minded, gentrified areas), who have proof of residence, and who don't fit the stereotypical image of a drug dealer.

If all that's the case, then it's true that you can go to a doctor and tell him or her that you have insomnia, headaches or bad menstrual cramps, and you're good to go. You can walk into a store like a civilized, non-criminal person, and choose from a variety of grades of marijuana.

But if you don't have a couple of hundred bucks to invest up front for what is essentially a (partial) get-out-of-jail-free card, or you don't have access to a willing physician and a dispensary, you're out of luck. There's still a healthy black market for marijuana, however. And police still arrest people who patronize it, and the courts still mete out punishments for doing so.

Just the $100-$300 barrier alone means that pot's still illegal for anyone who lives paycheck to paycheck. Add to that the fees cash-strapped California counties can charge to issue the card (in Sonoma it'll run you another $160 on top of the doctor's visit). If you earn a living wage, yes, you can use marijuana without fear of arrest. Work a minimum wage job, and pot's as illegal as it ever was.

Access to legal pot is limited geographically, according to both class and race, and the ideological orientation of local government.

There is also something akin to "red-lining" in poorer neighborhoods. Consider medical marijuana dispensaries in Los Angeles. If you're unfamiliar with the city, they're all clustered in yuppified, high-rent areas -- Culver City, Santa Monica, West Hollywood, Silver Lake, etc. There are no medical marijuana clubs in Inglewood, none in Compton, none in East L.A.

In the Bay Area, where medical marijuana dispensaries flourish in some communities, "Oaksterdam" has become the best-known destination for medical cannabis. But while people from elsewhere in the country may see Oakland as a poor, minority-dominated city, a map of Oaksterdam pot clubs shows they're clustered exclusively around the tony Lake Merritt area. There are none in the poorer parts of the city.

Geography and class aren't the only barriers to legal pot-smoking. If the 56 percent of California voters who favor outright legalization of marijuana had their way, anyone who appeared to be of age could buy marijuana legally, as with alcohol today. But California's medical cannabis law requires "a valid government-issued photo ID."

A number of studies looking at similar ID requirements for voting have shown that some are more likely to have those papers than others.. In Georgia, blacks were 83 percent more likely than whites to be without a state-issued ID. In Indiana, the elderly and the poor, young adults and minorities were less likely than the population as a whole to have valid state-issued documents. And ID, like the medical marijuana card itself, costs money. The New York Times, citing the $20 cost of a state-issued ID (in California, it'll run you $21), called Georgia's voter-ID law, "a new poll tax," disproportionately affecting the "poor, black and elderly."

. . . Of course, disparate punishments for getting high is nothing new in the U.S. The history of American drug laws is fairly consistent: with the exception of a brief and disastrous flirtation with alcohol prohibition, we have always come down harder on whatever the poor, foreigners or people of color use to get stupid. Opium became illegal when Chinese railroad workers used it to stave off the pain, but white ladies of the time could get their opiates easily enough from their favorite medicine-show huckster anytime they came down with a case of "the vapors."

The ultimate irony is that because of its "back-door" legalization, progressive California is continuing that tradition today. Conservatives may decry the state's supposedly freakish leftward tilt, but it's still the case that a San Francisco yuppie can hit the vaporizer without fear of jail, while a poor black youth smoking a blunt in downtown Oakland isn't so lucky.

Labels:


7 Comments:

Blogger Wolfpax said...

Smart thinking, smart writing. The issue of class and Cannabis is an area that receives too little coverage. Thanks for the good thoughts.

December 28, 2009 11:04 AM  
Blogger Wolfpax said...

Smart thinking, smart writing. The issue of class and Cannabis is an area that receives too little coverage. Thanks for the good thoughts.

December 28, 2009 11:04 AM  
Anonymous Igziabeher said...

Mr. Holland has stupid opinions on altering consciousness. I can solve puzzles and problems easily when I'm high that I've been blocked by when I'm straight. Maybe that's why we've been doing it for thousands of years.

December 28, 2009 1:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you've got enough money to buy pot, you've got enough money to see a doctor and get a recommendation.

December 28, 2009 10:09 PM  
Blogger nytefyre said...

Great article. My thoughts exactly. When you look at the race to end prohibition and you look at who's leading that race, there is a distinct lack of inclusivity. That is, unless you are a rapper.

December 29, 2009 9:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

‘Reefer Mad’ Mainstream Media Does It Again
Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:33:10 By: Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director
Share This Article
For anyone who missed the worldwide corporate media’s hysterical anti-pot headlines last week, here’s a sampling:

Cannabis more damaging to adolescent brains than previously known
via Emax Health
“New research shows that teens who consume cannabis daily can suffer anxiety and depression. Smoking marijuana can have long-term irreversible effects on adolescent brains, and is more harmful to teens than previously known.”

Teen marijuana use affects brain permanently: study
via CBC News
“The findings suggest daily marijuana use by teens can cause depression and anxiety, and have an irreversible effect on the brain.”

Pot damage on teens worse than thought
via UPI wire services
“Daily consumption of marijuana in teens can cause depression and anxiety, and have irreversible long-term effect on the brain, Canadian researchers say.”

Cannabis brain damage worse in teens than thought: study
via The Canadian Press
“The effects of daily cannabis use on teenage brains is worse than originally thought, and the long-term effects appear to be irreversible, new research from McGill University suggests.”

Sounds scary, huh? It’s meant to. Only there’s three serious problems with the mainstream media’s alarmist coverage.

1) No adolescents — or for that matter, any human beings whatsoever — actually participated in the study.

2) No actual cannabis was consumed in the study.

3) No permanent brain damage was reported in the study.

Don’t believe me? Well then, check out the actual source of the headlines yourself.

Chronic exposure to cannabinoids during adolescence but not during adulthood impairs emotional behaviour and monoaminergic neurotransmission
via PubMed

“We tested this hypothesis by administering the CB(1) receptor agonist WIN55,212-2, once daily for 20 days to adolescent and adult rats. … Chronic adolescent exposure but not adult exposure to low (0.2 mg/kg) and high (1.0 mg/kg) doses led to depression-like behaviour in the forced swim and sucrose preference test, while the high dose also induced anxiety-like consequences in the novelty-suppressed feeding test. … These (findings) suggest that long-term exposure to cannabinoids during adolescence induces anxiety-like and depression-like behaviours in adulthood and that this may be instigated by serotonergic hypoactivity and noradrenergic hyperactivity.”

To summarize: Investigators administered daily doses of a highly potent synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonist WIN,55,212-2 to both adolescent rats and adult rats for 20 days. Days following their exposure, researchers documented altered serotonin production in younger rats. (Why investigators presumed that the change in serotonin production would be permanent I have no idea. After the initial 20-day waiting period, researchers do not appear to have tested the rats’ serotonin levels ever again.) Researchers also documented supposed depression-like and anxiety-like behavior in certain rats, based on various elaborate animal models and preference tests.

Yet somehow based on this speculative preclinical evidence, the mainstream media — in unison — proclaimed:

Reefer badness
via San Diego Tribune

“A study of Canadian teenagers … found that smoking the illicit drug is harder on young brains than originally thought. Writing in the journal Neurobiology of Disease, researchers at McGill University in Montreal said daily consumption of cannabis in teens can cause significant depression and anxiety and have an irreversible long-term effect on the brain.”

In truth, the purported ’study’ never said anything of the sort!

So why the does the MSM consistently get the story wrong when it comes to pot? You can check out my previous thoughts on the issue here.

December 29, 2009 10:32 PM  
Anonymous cannabisculture said...

Ask Ed: Questions and Answers - The Tomato Model
By Ed Rosenthal, Cannabis Culture - Monday, December 28 2009
Tags: Ask Ed,CC Magazine Feature Articles,Headline News,Ed Rosenthal,GROWING.
CANNABIS CULTURE - Ganja Guru Ed Rosenthal on the "Tomato Model" of pot legalization in California.
Question: I am curious to know: will [legalization efforts in California] open the door for major corporations to take over the industry? Can you please educate me?

Christopher, California

Ed's Rosenthal: Yes! And you are not going to be able to get any pot except if you are fingerprinted and have your photo taken! I know that is the answer you are expecting to hear...

However, I think that we are going to experience the "Tomato Model" with the legalization of marijuana.

More tomatoes are grown in America by home gardeners than are produced commercially. Yet there is a robust commercial market for tomatoes and tomato products of all types: canned, vine-ripened, organic, sauces, soups, ketchup, etc. At the same time, small-scale specialty cultivators do well swelling their produce at Farmers’ Markets, and home gardeners with extra tomatoes share the bounty with neighbors as gifts, in trade, or through informal sales. Marijuana could be handled in the same way. Commercial growers can thrive side-by-side with home and specialty cultivators.

An appropriate question, as there are only 309 days left until it is legal here!

December 29, 2009 10:38 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home